help button home button Biophys. J.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplement
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jaqaman, K.
Right arrow Articles by Danuser, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jaqaman, K.
Right arrow Articles by Danuser, G.
Biophysical Journal 91:2312-2325 (2006)
© 2006 The Biophysical Society

Comparative Autoregressive Moving Average Analysis of Kinetochore Microtubule Dynamics in Yeast

Khuloud Jaqaman *, Jonas F. Dorn *, Gregory S. Jelson {dagger}, Jessica D. Tytell {dagger}, Peter K. Sorger {dagger} and Gaudenz Danuser *

* Department of Cell Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California; and {dagger} Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Correspondence: Address reprint requests to Gaudenz Danuser, E-mail: gdanuser{at}scripps.edu.

To elucidate the regulation of kinetochore microtubules (kMTs) by kinetochore proteins in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, we need tools to characterize and compare stochastic kMT dynamics. Here we show that autoregressive moving average (ARMA) models, combined with a statistical framework for testing the significance of differences between ARMA model parameters, provide a sensitive method for identifying the subtle changes in kMT dynamics associated with kinetochore protein mutations. Applying ARMA analysis to G1 kMT dynamics, we found that 1), kMT dynamics in the kinetochore protein mutants okp1-5 and kip3{Delta} are different from those in wild-type, demonstrating the regulation of kMTs by kinetochore proteins; 2), the kinase Ipl1p regulates kMT dynamics also in G1; and 3), the mutant dam1-1 exhibits three different phenotypes, indicating the central role of Dam1p in maintaining the attachment of kMTs and regulating their dynamics. We also confirmed that kMT dynamics vary with temperature, and are most likely differentially regulated at 37°C. Therefore, when elucidating the role of a protein in kMT regulation using a temperature-sensitive mutant, dynamics in the mutant at its nonpermissive temperature must be compared to those in wild-type at the same temperature, not to those in the mutant at its permissive temperature.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the Biophysical Society.